<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (6) TMI 42 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48930</link>
    <description>Diamond segments used as parts in blades were held entitled to exemption under Notification No. 207/88-C.E. because they fell under Central Excise Tariff Chapter Heading 8202.00 and the same issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier ruling. That earlier view had been taken in appeal to the Supreme Court, where the appeal was dismissed. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected and the exemption benefit was confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:39:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 42 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48930</link>
      <description>Diamond segments used as parts in blades were held entitled to exemption under Notification No. 207/88-C.E. because they fell under Central Excise Tariff Chapter Heading 8202.00 and the same issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier ruling. That earlier view had been taken in appeal to the Supreme Court, where the appeal was dismissed. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected and the exemption benefit was confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>